Klarinet Archive - Posting 000341.txt from 1997/10

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: RE: K. 622 -Reply
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:38:51 -0400

James S.:
I think we need to know what you mean by "successful" in this context.
Roger Shilcock

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, James Sclater wrote:

> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:07:57 -0500
> From: James Sclater <Sclater@-----.edu>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.us
> To: leeson@-----.us,
> leeson@-----.edu
> Subject: RE: K. 622 -Reply
>
> Dan,
> Your statement
> "K. 622 not only does not work as a flute concerto, it is
> inherent in its design that it cannot do so..."
>
> seems a bit off the mark for me. First of all, I would ask if you had ever
> heard K.622 done as a flute concerto? Your flat refusal to consider the
> possibility that it might work in an arrangement seems, at the very least,
> premature. While it seems that Mozart never did an arrangement for flute, it
> seems reasonable to assert that a person of his creative genius could make it
> work if he wanted to do so and were presented with the right incentives.
>
> Your statements about "immutable laws" involving instrumental ranges deals
> with elements to be dealt with in the creative process. With all due respect
> to your other good ideas, you seem to be railing against something which
> hasn't happened yet . A composer with the understanding possessed by Mozart
> could make such an endeavor work. The idea that an arrangement wouldn't sound
> like the clarinet version seems reasonable enough, but that's not the point.
> There is a long history of successful arrangements by composers/arrangers who
> really knew what they were doing. No reason this couldn't happen here.
>